Dialogue is critical to de-escalation of conflict and we’re supposed to have protected rights to prevent disagreements from boiling over. Our Constitution is our pact of civilized behavior – in which we agree to resolve our conflicts non-violently. Our freedom of speech is to allow debate of differences, while fair elections and due process provide the means for non-violent resolution of those differences. So, why isn’t the system working any longer? Because government functionaries have decided that the pact doesn’t serve them anymore.
In just the past three years, government orders have:
- Closed small businesses,
- Restricted access to churches,
- Limited our rights of movement and association,
- Challenged our right to parent our children,
- Undermined free and fair elections, and even
- Limited our freedom of speech.
We have grievances. Our law enforcement doesn’t even pretend to pursue justice anymore. “Public servants” behave as if they are our masters. Uncontrolled government growth has become a burden on our economy. Schools are indoctrinating our children. One political side insists that it is the arbiter of proper thinking. Our God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been sacrificed to enable corruption. And yet, we’re not even permitted to express our concerns without being censored by our own government. The pressure is building.
A federal judge has attempted to release some of the pressure. Missouri and Louisiana brought a lawsuit against Joseph R. Biden, asserting that his administration harmed citizens by violating their constitutionally protected speech. On July 4, Judge Terry Doughty, Chief U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, enjoined the federal government from contact with social media companies for purposes of stifling opposition opinions.
In his order, Judge Doughty cited a mountain of evidence that administration officials had sought to censor speech relative to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, pandemic protocols, COVID’s origin, election fraud, the economy, and even political parody – because humor is now deemed a threat to our republic.
Executive branch departments or agencies restricted under the injunction include the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, NIAID, FBI, CISA, State Department, Food and Drug Administration, Treasury, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the Department of Commerce.
Judge Doughty has not decided the case on its merits. However, in his order, based on the evidence presented, he noted that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in court.
Unfortunately, our current administration is not in favor of releasing the pressure on the pressure cooker. Our President has requested a stay on the injunction – and he has been granted it by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The censorship may now continue until the Supreme Court ultimately decides the issue.
Note what Joe Biden is not saying. He’s not saying that the evidence was wrong or mistakes were made. Were that the case, he could have simply left the injunction in place, stated that he does not condone attempts at censorship, and ordered it stopped.
But Biden has said no such thing. Instead, he demanded that the injunction be lifted. His actions are the President of the United States stating that it is within his purview to censor the opinions of American citizens. He is declaring his authority to violate the Constitution because our voices may jeopardize his actions. With his challenge to the injunction, he has broken his oath of office and breached our constitutional pact.
The future is not likely to work out as federal authorities expect. Our polarization cannot continue indefinitely, and it will not resolve while our grievances remain unaddressed. Our current path is unsustainable. There will either be a resolution or dissolution.
While it is not irreversible yet, dissolution is already underway. Americans are sorting themselves between blue and red states on the basis of ideology. A massive migration is underway. When the sorting is complete, the United States will cease to be “united.” The reds will allow personal freedom; while the blues impose central control. We may see how that turns out but recognize that divorce is rarely pleasant.
Alternatively, we can keep our union if we resolve our differences. That can be done verbally or non-verbally.
A verbal resolution would require us to stop canceling each other and talk. We would need to reach a compromise that we can live with – not on basic human rights, but on the social issues that animate both sides.
Non-verbal resolution will happen if we dispense with the debate, and work to crush each other with boycotts, censorship, cancellation, ostracization, or even violence. A non-verbal resolution will require us to fight it out until one side surrenders. In this scenario, one side will win and the other will lose.
The government’s attempt to deny our God-given rights is not sustainable. Something will have to give. Without a means for peaceful resolution of differences, it will not be pretty or civilized.
Our founders understood that our rights are gifts from God. Human rights cannot be canceled – only suppressed. They understood, because they had lived it, that suppression of rights does not result in peace and stability. It causes conflict and unrest.
Unaddressed grievances will continue to build until a breaking point is reached. In the end, we will either hear each other’s voices, or we will face each other’s wrath.
